I'd say this qualifies as someone saying it's OK to kill Israelis

So when you claimed that "the Left" believes it's OK to kill Israelis, you were referring to anonymous commenter on the Internet who didn't even say that.

Or, in other words, you were clearly lying.

As usual.

There are ways to advocate your views without constantly lying. Why don't you try it?

Yes they are children, and no, they aren't capable of looking out for their own interests. They've elected a terrorist group as leaders and gotten themselves imprisoned by virtue of inane attacks on their supply benefactors. They are SO bad even Egypt doesn't want to do anything with them, nor any other ME country other than Iran. They are so stupid in fact that they will not accept Israel's right to exist, preferring anarchy to any hope for peace and prosperity.

These are people who've been deprived and denied of their homes, in the broadest sense of the word (homeland).

If you really believe that's a valid argument let's see you hand over the keys to your house to the nearest Native American.

When a master decides what can and cannot be sold, shipped, delivered, or who can/cannot receive medical treatment in Gaza (due to equipment and power failures), or in Israel (due to Israeli blockades on medicines and medical equipment), then a state of slavery exists.

Oh brother. If we take this characterization as legit, then the slave that tries to kill the master should be executed.

It's a pretty sorry mis-direction to suddenly speak of "Arab leadership" as the ostensible roadblock to peace. The specific parties, here/now/always, are the Palestinians and Israelis.

The Arab leadership as well as yourself are enablers of this conflict, encouraging the Palestinians to fight rather than accept their situation and recognize Israel's right to exist. Way to go bud. Warmonger.

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSN08201336

Lawmakers in Washington routinely pass nonbinding resolutions supporting Israel during Middle East crises. The Senate has backed Israel's ongoing battle against Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip and the House of Representatives is expected to follow suit soon.

Even U.S. lawmakers who express sympathy for the Palestinians hesitate to call themselves pro-Palestinian and they voice strong support for the security of Israel as well, hewing to decades of close U.S.-Israeli ties.{snip}

Harry Reid, who leads the Democratic majority in the Senate, gave voice to the depth of the relationship when he said on Thursday, "Our resolution reflects the will of the State of Israel and the will of the American people."

The post Shartstain uses to "support" his execrable b.s. is from well AFTER sharter's contention it's OK to torture people to death.

So when you claimed that "the Left" believes it's OK to kill Israelis, you were referring to anonymous commenter on the Internet who didn't even say that.Or, in other words, you were clearly lying. As usual. There are ways to advocate your views without constantly lying. Why don't you try it?

Greenwald, you are clearly egging on the Palestinians to fight Israel, rather than accept their situation and recognizing Israel's right to exist. In my book that makes you a warmonger.

I'm not going to do research when I know perfectly well some fellow warmonger is going to equate killing Israelis to nearly nothing. In this case bee stings, or in previous cases traffic fatalities. "Oh it's only 20 Jews" is clearly dismissive of those lives.

From the Sydney Morning Herald's Paul McGeough:

Israel's weeklong turning point

THE Israeli commentator Aluf Benn has a name for the moment at which a "good" war goes bad. He calls it the "euphoria point".

Answering his own question on what turns a bold military operation into a depressing war of attrition, he defines the moment thus: "Rapid success at the start of a campaign boosts the leaders' spirits and encourages them to continue the fighting 'until victory is achieved' … [They] scornfully reject proposals for ceasefires … the enemy regroups … What began as a walk in the park ends in pointless attrition, or even in searing defeat."

Benn was moved to write by the avalanche of criticism of Israel after the death of more than 40 Palestinian civilians on Tuesday, when an Israeli tank fired in the direction of a United Nations-run school, to which hundreds had fled in response to the Israelis' leafleted demand that they vacate their homes.

But the hit on the school was just the start of what was to be a prolonged euphoria point.

Early yesterday the Israeli leadership again came under attack from the UN, this time because the world body had been forced to suspend emergency aid operations in Gaza when one of its drivers was killed and two others were wounded despite driving UN-flagged vehicles and co-ordinating their movements with the Israeli military.

Usually reluctant to go public, the International Committee of the Red Cross described as shocking the discovery by its field staff on Wednesday of four emaciated children next to the bodies of their dead mothers in a house in Zeitoun, near Gaza City. It rebuked the Israeli military for failing its obligation under humanitarian law "to care for and evacuate the wounded".

In the meantime, Israeli officials opted for a slanging match they could not win, challenging the view of Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican's pontifical council on peace and justice, who said on Wednesday: "Look at the conditions in Gaza: more and more it resembles a big concentration camp."

The cardinal has since upped the ante. In an interview with La Repubblica he describes the situation in Gaza as horrific and "against human dignity".

Even the US State Department had a rebuke, saying the three-hour lull in fighting that Israel grudgingly agreed to observe on the afternoon of each second day of fighting was insufficient.

Amnesty International complained that Israeli troops were endangering civilians by occupying their homes and holding them by force in ground-floor rooms, while the rest of the building was used as an Israeli military base and sniper position.

Lost in the welter was Amnesty's complaint that Hamas gunmen continued to endanger civilians by shooting from near their homes and an Israeli media report that Hamas gunmen were executing Palestinians suspected of collaborating with the Israelis.

All this for what? On Thursday Aluf Benn and his colleague Amos Harel reported jointly in the daily Haaretz that the Israeli leadership was in a bind about expanding the military operation in Gaza - some of the generals believed they had inflicted a "serious blow" on Hamas, but others advised that they had damaged only 10 to 15 per cent of the Islamists' military capability.

In an attempt to help Israelis understand their circumstances, The Economist's Jerusalem correspondent, Gideon Lichfield, made a guest appearance in Ha'aretz to address a question frequently posed to him by Israelis - "Why isn't Israel winning the PR war?"

Assuring readers that it was not because of any slouching by Israel's hasbara, or public advocacy army, Lichfield concluded: "When the question the world is asking is not 'Who's right?' but 'What works?' the consistent impression Israel leaves is that it kills people because, at best, it simply doesn't have any better ideas; and at worst, because some Israeli leader is trying to get the upper hand on one of his or her rivals."

Israeli embassies worldwide will have been reporting the week's rising tide of criticism to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Jerusalem. Having copped the lot from the Vatican, the UN, the Red Cross, Amnesty International and even the State Department, what were they to make of the page-one exclusive in The Guardian yesterday - "Obama camp 'prepared to talk to Hamas"'?

The entire week, it seems, has become one of Aluf Benn's euphoria points.